Review: The Interim Report (A/63/161) will be
transmitted to the General Assembly in New
York in a presentation by Asma
Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or
Belief, before the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) on
Wednesday afternoon 22
October 2008. Attached are the Summary and Conclusions and
Recommendations of the report which is linked below.

Summary

The Special Rapporteur on
freedom of religion or belief submits the present report to the General
Assembly pursuant to its resolution 62/157. In the report, she gives an
overview of the activities carried out under the mandate since the submission
of her previous report to the Assembly (A/62/280) and Corr.1), including her
recent visits to Angola, India, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Special Rapporteur
addresses citizenship issues and religious discrimination in administrative
procedures, a cross-cutting substantive topic of her mandate. After providing
an overview of the pertinent State practice and domestic legislation, she
examines the applicable international legal standards and case law. She notes
that while most State does not openly discriminate on the basis of religion
with respect to citizenship issues and in administrative procedures, there are
instances where State practice or domestic legislation is inconsistent with
human rights standards. In particular she is concerned about the denial or
deprivation of citizenship based on a person’s religious affiliation compulsory
mentioning of selected religions on official identity cards or passports;
requirements to denounce a particular faith when applying for official
documents and restricted eligibility for State functions for persons of certain
faiths.

The Special Rapporteur
presents conclusions and recommendations with regard to citizenship issues and
administrative procedures in the context of her mandate. She emphasizes that
the legitimate interests of the State have to be balance on a case-by-case
basis with the individual’s freedom of religion or belief also taking into
account his or her right to privacy, liberty of movement, right to nationality
and the principle of non-discrimination.. She highlights some aspect that may
help to determine whether certain restrictions on the right to freedom of
religion or belief in the context of citizenship issues and administrative
procedures are in contravention of human rights law.

Link to Interim Report of
the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief:

Excerpts: Excerpts are presented under the Eight Articles of
the 1981 U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Examples of extracts are presented
prior to an Issue Statement for each Review.

Interim
Report to the Third Committee (A/63/161) of Ms. Asma
Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief

IV. Conclusions and recommendations

67. The State practice and domestic legislation on
citizenship issues and administrative procedures as outlined above (see 25-66
above) shows that Governments sometimes impose restrictions in such a way that
the right to freedom of religion or belief of the persons concerned is
adversely affected. While the State may have a legitimate interest in limiting
some manifestations of the freedom of religion or belief, when applying
limitations the State must ensure that certain conditions are fulfilled. Any
limitation must be based on the grounds of public safety, order, health, morals
of the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, it must respond to a pressing
public or social need, it must pursue a legitimate aim and it must be
proportionate to that aim.

68. In essence, freedom of religion or belief and
the legitimate interests of the State will have to be balanced on a
case-by-case basis. In addition to the right to freedom of religion or belief
the individual’s right to privacy and liberty of movement, his or her right to
a nationality as well as the principle of non-discrimination may also be at
stake. Keeping in mind this case-by-case approach and the balancing exercise,
the Special Rapporteur would like to highlight some aspects that may help to
determine whether certain restrictions on the right to freedom of religion or
belief are in contravention of human rights law.

69. The State cannot impose or interpret
limitations in a way that would jeopardize the essence of the right concerned.
Consequently, forcing someone who wishes to take up a public post to take an
oath swearing his or her allegiance to a certain religion may amount to
coercion by the State and would violate the individual’s freedom of religion or
belief. Similarly inconsistent with article 18 (2) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would be citizenship policies or
practices which restrict access to education, medical care, employment,
humanitarian assistance or social benefits in order to compel believers or
non-believers to adhere to, recant or change their religious beliefs.

70. Measures that discriminate on the basis of
religion or belief, or lead to de facto discrimination on such grounds, violate
human rights standards. Consequently, it would be contrary to the principle of
non-discrimination to restrict citizenship to people with certain religious
beliefs or to deny official documents based on the applicant’s religious
affiliation. It is also a discriminatory State practice to restrict public
posts to member of certain religions or to require candidates to adhere to a
particular denomination of the dominant religion in that State. However, the
principle of equality may require States to take affirmative action in order to
diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate
discrimination. Thus, reserving a certain proportion of seats in legislatures
to members of religious minorities might be a case of legitimate
differentiation as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination in
fact.

71. Measures that limit the freedom of religion or
belief must pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate to the aim.
Furthermore, any assessment as to the necessity of a limitation should be based
on objective considerations.

72. It would be a legitimate aim were a State to
ask for the religious affiliation of its citizens, for example, within the
framework of conducting a national census that will allow the State to analyze
issues related to freedom of religion or belief. However, the burden of
justifying a limitation on human rights such as freedom of religion or belief
or the individual’s right to privacy lies with the State.

73. Laws imposing limitations on the exercise of
human rights should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the State wishes to
mention religious affiliation on official documents, various categories of
affiliation, including open-ended ones, need to be provided. It is never
sufficient to provide as the only possibility a choice from a limited number of
official recognized religions; there should also be the possibility for the
individual to indicate “other religion” or “no religion”, and the possibility
not to divulge his or her religious beliefs at all. In general, any indication
of one’s religious affiliation should be on a voluntary basis.

74. All limitations should be interpreted in the
light and context of the particular right concerned. Taking into account the
nature of the positive and negative freedom of religion or belief, applicants
for official documents should not be obliged to subscribe to specific
statements with regard to their substantive religious beliefs.

75. Governments may argue that they need to be
informed of the religious affiliation of their citizens in order to know, for example,
under which (religious) personal law a marriage should be registered. When
restricting the freedom of religion or belief, however, a State should use no
more restrictive means than are required for the achievement or the purpose of
the limitation. A less restrictive means from the individual’s perspective
could be devised by the State, for example, by providing a civil alternative
for the registration of marriages.

76. As article 12(3) of the International covenant
on Civil and Political Rights requires that nay restrictions on the liberty of
movement must be consistent with the other rights recognized in the Covenant,
it seems advisable to remove questions in passport or visa application forms
concerning the applicant’s religious affiliation.

77. Indicating a person’s religious affiliation on
official documents carries a serious risk of abuse or subsequent discrimination
based on religion or belief, which has to be weighed against the possible
reasons for disclosing the holder’s religion.

78. Every limitation imposed should be subject to
the possibility of challenge to and remedy against its abusive application.
Fundamental fairness and the right to appeal must be guaranteed in all
citizenship and administrative procedures.

ISSUE STATEMENT: The Conclusions and Recommendations by Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of
Religion or Belief, give added substance to her suggestions made in Prague in 2006 at the 25
year anniversary of the 1981 U.N. Declaration. States should be encouraged to
implement these recommendations as a follow-up strategy for their Universal
Periodic Reviews.

Submit information under the Eight Articles and
sub-paragraphs of the 1981 U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance
and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief by using The Tandem Project
Country & Community Database.

Introduction: The Tandem Project is dedicated to support for
International Human Rights Standards on Freedom of Religion or Belief. The
focus is on fundamental values shared virtually universally by public, private,
religious and non-religious organizations to change how our cultures view
differences, how we often behave toward one another and to forestall the
reflexive hostility we see so vividly around the world.

As we are all painfully
aware, religious conflict continues to escalate worldwide whether in the Middle East, Eastern Europe,
Africa, South Asia,
East Asia or the Americas. Acceptance of the rights
of others to their own beliefs continues to be a value denied for millions of
people. Much suffering is inflicted in the name of religion or belief on
minorities, women and children and “the other” for the most part by
perpetrators in total disregard for the tenets of their own faiths.

Surely one of the best hopes for the future of
humankind is to embrace a culture in which religions and other beliefs accept
one another, in which wars and violence are not tolerated in the name of an
exclusive right to truth, in which children are raised to solve conflicts with
mediation, compassion and understanding.

The Tandem Project: a non-governmental organization founded
in 1986 to build understanding, tolerance and respect for diversity, and to
prevent discrimination in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief.
The Tandem Project, a non-profit NGO, has sponsored multiple conferences,
curricula, reference materials and programs on Article 18 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Everyone shall have the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion - and 1981 United Nations
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination
Based on Religion or Belief.

The Tandem Project
initiative is the result of a co-founder representing the World Federation of
United Nations Associations at the United Nations Geneva Seminar, Encouragement ofUnderstanding, Tolerance
and Respect in Matters Relating to Freedom of Religion or Belief,
called by the UN Secretariat in 1984 on ways to implement the 1981 UN
Declaration. In 1986, The Tandem Project organized the first NGO International
Conference on the 1981 UN Declaration.

The Tandem Project is a UN NGO in
Special Consultative Status with the

Economic and Social Council of
the United Nations

__________________________________________

Purpose: To build understanding and support for
Article 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights –Everyone
shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion - and the
1981 UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Encourage the United Nations,
Governments, Religions or Beliefs, Academia, NGOs, Media and Civil Society to
consider the rule of law and International Human Rights Standards on Freedom of
Religion or Belief as essential for long-term solutions
to conflicts in all matters relating to religion or belief.

Challenge: In 1968 the United Nations deferred work on an
International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Religious
Intolerance, because of its apparent complexity and sensitivity. In the
twenty-first century, a dramatic increase of intolerance and discrimination on
grounds of religion or belief is motivating a worldwide search to find solutions
to these problems. This is a challenge calling for enhanced dialogue by States
and others; including consideration of an International Convention on Freedom
of Religion or Belief for protection of and accountability by all religions or
beliefs. The tensions in today’s world inspire a question such as:

Should the United Nations
adopt an International Convention on Freedom of Religion or Belief?

Response: Is it the appropriate moment to
reinitiate the drafting of a legally binding international convention on
freedom of religion or belief? Law making of this nature requires a minimum
consensus and an environment that appeals to reason rather than emotions. At
the same time we are on a learning curve as the various dimensions of the
Declaration are being explored. Many academics have produced voluminous books
on these questions but more ground has to be prepared before setting up of a UN
working group on drafting a convention. In my opinion, we should not try to
rush the elaboration of a Convention on Freedom of Religion or Belief,
especially not in times of high tensions and unpreparedness. - UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Asma Jahangir, Prague
25 Year Anniversary Commemoration of the 1981 UN Declaration, 25 November 2006.

Option: After forty years this may be the time,
however complex and sensitive, for the United Nations Human Rights Council to
appoint an Open-ended Working Group to draft a United Nations Convention on
Freedom of Religion or Belief. The mandate for an Open-ended Working Group
ought to assure nothing in a draft Convention will be construed as restricting
or derogating from any right defined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights, and the 1981 UN
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

Separation of Religion or Belief
and State

Concept:Separation of Religion or Belief and State - SOROBAS. The First Preamble to the 1948 United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads; “Whereasrecognition ofthe inherent
dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human
family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.This concept suggests
States recalling their history, culture and constitution adopt fair and equal
human rights protection for all religions or beliefs as described in General
Comment 22 on Article 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
UN Human Rights Committee, 20
July 1993 (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4):

Article
18: protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not
to profess anyreligion or belief.
The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not
limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs
with international characteristics or practices analogous to those of
traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency
to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reasons, including the
fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that
may be the subject of hostility by a predominant religious community. Article 18: permits restrictions to manifest a religion or
belief only if such limitations are prescribed by law and necessary to protect
public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms
of others.

The Tandem Project uses International Human Rights
Standards on Freedom of Religion or Belief to review the actions of
governments, religions or beliefs, non-governmental organizations and civil
society under constitutional systems such as Separation of Church and State, StateChurch,
Theocratic, and other legal frameworks. Separation of Religion or
Belief and State as a concept is for equal, fair and practical
support for all theistic, non-theistic and atheistic
beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief, in
tandem with international human rights standards on freedom of religion or
belief.

Objectives: The Tandem Project Objectives:

Use International Human Rights Standards on
Freedom of Religion or Belief as a platform for genuine dialogue on the core
principles and values within and among nations, all religions and other
beliefs.

Adapt these human rights standards to early
childhood education, teaching children, from the very beginning, that
their own religion is one out of many and that it is a personal choice for
everyone to adhere to the religion or belief by which he or she feels most
inspired, or to adhere to no religion or belief at all.1

Dialogue: United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki
Moon, at the Alliance of Civilizations Madrid Forum said; “Never in our
lifetime has there been a more desperate need for constructive and committed
dialogue, among individuals, among communities, among cultures, among and
between nations.” A writer in another setting has said, “The warning signs are
clear: unless we establish genuine dialogue within and among all kinds of
belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the
conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly.”

International Human
Rights Standards on Freedom or Religion or Belief are international law and
universal codes of conduct for peaceful cooperation, respectful competition and
resolution of conflicts. The standards are a platform for genuine dialogue on
core principles and values within and among nations, all religions and other
beliefs.

Education: Ambassador Piet de Klerk
addressing the Prague 25 Year Anniversary Commemoration of the 1981 U.N.
Declaration said; “Our educational systems need to provide children with a
broad orientation: from the very beginning, children should be taught that
their own religion is one out of many and that it is a personal choice for
everyone to adhere to the religion or belief by which he or she feels most
inspired, or to adhere to no religion or belief at all.” 1

The 1981 U.N. Declaration states; “Every child shall
enjoy the right to have access to education in the matter of religion or belief
in accordance with the wishes of his parents, and shall not be compelled to
receive teaching on religion or belief against the wishes of his parents, the
best interests of the child being the guiding principle.” With International
Human Rights safeguards, early childhood education is the best time to begin to
build tolerance, understanding and respect for freedom of religion or belief.